AS BUDGET BLEEDS, STATE IS BEGGING FOR A CASH CROP

Things are looking pretty dicey on the state budget front these days.
Then again, everyone pretty much knew that already.

But that didn't stop voters on Tuesday from decisively rejecting five
ballot measures designed to absolve at least part of the massive
budget deficit that currently threatens to drag California's ailing
economy all the way to the floor.

Proposition 1A, backed by higher-education leaders and most state
officials, gained less than 40 percent approval. Propositions 1B, 1C,
1D and 1E fared no better. The only measure that did pass was
Proposition 1F, which will implement a largely symbolic and ultimately
useless cap on legislative salaries during deficit years.

Admittedly, these measures were a rather meek attempt at repairing
California's leaky fiscal plumbing. With a budget deficit of over $20
billion, the damage is much too deep for any such cosmetic financial
maneuvering to have a meaningful impact.

However, this somewhat ill-conceived ballot package would have cleared
up at least $5 billion from the state's unsightly deficit and 1A would
have steered California on a progressive path to future savings.

Unfortunately, the resounding defeat witnessed in this not-so-special
election means that all we have to look forward to now is a new round
of painful cuts, massive layoffs and the sinking feeling that results
from being hurtled decisively back to square one.

Worst of all, California's seemingly perpetual budget drama means even
less state funding for our cash-starved public universities next year.
The University of California is facing at least $320 million in cuts
for the 2009-10 fiscal year, cuts that UC President Mark G. Yudof said
will lead to larger class sizes, the inevitable onset of additional
student-fee increases and a significant reduction in student services.

The problem lies deep within California's budgetary underpinnings.
Right now, our state depends on volatile income taxes to provide over
half of its annual revenue. There is little doubt that we need a more
solid, more reliable, more consistent plan on which to base our
economy. We need a regular source of income, one that doesn't falter
under hazardous national economic woes or depend on the shady
wheelings and dealings of an unregulated financial sector.

It may be time now to consider a more immediate solution, one that
will generate cash for our state when we need it most. It may be time
to consider marijuana.

Before we get caught up in all kinds of stilted stereotypes, let's do
ourselves a favor and forget the goofy "legalize it" campaigns, the
dreadlocked demonstrators and the age-old "it's totally harmless" mantra.

Instead, let's think of it like corn. Or potatoes. Or tobacco. Or just
about any other lucrative cash crop that generates millions of dollars
each year for the states fortunate enough to harvest these valuable
commodities.

The undeniable fact is that marijuana has the potential to
dramatically boost our state economy. It represents a market that
consistently rakes in billions of dollars each year. The demand is
there, and what's more: The infrastructure is already largely in
place. Expansive pot farms consume vast tracts of land in California's
northern regions -- farms that look ripe for government support and
regulation -- and the controversial cannabis clubs that continue to
spring up statewide could easily be converted to dispensaries geared
toward mainstream consumption.

With a national economy that has rapidly come to value services over
production, it would be refreshing to see California foster a more
traditional, agricultural-based approach to generating revenue. And
with a budget situation that seriously threatens to derail our state's
ability to provide for its citizens, it is necessary to consider new
approaches to resolving this fiscal conundrum.